Defensive Carry banner

Why should police be exempt from laws, mag limits?

12K views 134 replies 53 participants last post by  Havok 
#1 ·
#67 ·
[sarcasm] Well there you go now. The only solution is the British solution. After all, they are dangerous even in the
hands of trained LEOS. [/sarcasm]
 
#62 ·
I don't know of any LEOs that would disagree that you should be able to carry any freaking gun you want to carry with whatever magazine you feel is necessary. Saying you should be able to over and over does nothing. The issue is that New York has passed a law saying you cannot and whether that should apply to police officers. I don't see any logic in arguing that cops should have to have a limited magazine because non LEOs have to have a limited magazine. Just because stupid people passed a stupid law you want people who will run to the sound of guns to be underarmed? Are the people on this forum really so self absorbed and self centered to believe that others should be at risk just because you don't like the law that passed? I'd think people would at least be glad that the cavalry that is coming to help them when things go south won't be hamstrung by the idiots that limited your magazine capacity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hopyard
#64 ·
I keep saying im out of this one but i keep seeing posts missing the point.:redface:
Nobody wants LE underarmed. We dont want us less armed than LE. But the point is if Mr. New York had know up front that whatever limits he set on civilians would apply to LE in that state regardless, as it should be anyway, this stupidity would never have happened.
NY cops would have been up in arms so fast you wouldnt have time to say the word Dictator. And the whole liberal idea that LE eventually will be used to disarm the public wouldnt be worth a spit since the public would have numbers and parity of firepower hence the advantage.
To make LE have to be equal with the public at whatever level the idiots set up by itself would have stopped this nonsense from ever coming up.
No disrespect to LE I love you guys. But the cavalry coming??? Joe citizen 99 precent of the time is either a victim or has defended him herself by the time the "cavalry" is dispatched much less got there to help.
 
#63 ·
What horsepuckey! In the event of violent crimes, non-LEO's are first to encounter criminals and usually many encounter the criminal before the police do. LEO's don't deserve to have any better weapons than non-LEO's. Criminals tend to avoid LEO's and target non-LEO's. Who come's up with this crud?
Text Line Font Parallel


Having a police force that is, by law, better armed than the average citizenry just separates us that much more. Seems some are still under the false impression that police are always there when needed.

Are you freakin' kidding me - non-license holders are a problem? You're off your rocker. ...... I better shut up now.
 
#66 ·
...as a former LEO, I feel they surely need all the firepower thery can manage...not uncommon for a lone officer to stop a car with 3-4 bangers in it who are armed...back in the 70s, when we were sporting new M66 .357s, an officer walked up on a 17-year-old dope dealer...carrying an UZI...said he felt kinda naked...

...that being said, I believe private citizens should be just as unrestricted...when seconds count...officers are usually minutes away...
 
#72 ·
Police in New York are having fits about suddenly being penalized by a hastily-written gun lawhttp://www.examiner.com/article/gun...-should-get-special-treatment?cid=db_articles
I have issues with exempting any one group over others. I really want the police officers to have all the tools and equipment they need to safely do there job, I think that's our responsibility to provide them. However, when you start creating law that applies to one, and not all, your carving out exceptions that definitely cause me pause.

We're all supposed to be "Equal under the law", and creating these special use classes is to our detriment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ccw9mm
#75 ·
Beyond which, we started out as a Republic in which all power was derived from the People, those powers subordinated to that of the People, and elements were put in place to avoid the threat of standing armies. Based on these principles, it's clear to me the goal really should be no restrictions on the People as to what their basic weaponry should be. After all, the point is to keep the People strong, not emasculated.

It's not as though criminals care anything for a prohibition on this or that feature when they're already ignoring "bans" on murder, robbery, rape and all the rest; and it's not as though a weakened/disarmed citizenry is going to be more capable of withstanding and surviving threats. Such steps aren't hardly in our best interests, either as a People or as individuals.
 
#74 ·
The "limits" are not to accomplish anything ..... other than taking the guns. Keep making restrictions so absurd and then banning any guns that can't meet them.... e.g. any gun capable of using a 10 rd mag would also be "banned" and illegal to own (IE NEW YORK).
 
#82 ·
numerous court cases that say police have no duty to protect
And this part is key. While it is true that cops are more likely to encounter deadly violence because of their job, when they do the threat is no more real than it is for anyone else. By the same token, In my job I am more likely than the police to risk exposure to lethal high voltage but it doesn't make it any more or less deadly than it would be to a cop.
 
#83 ·
.

If someone in NY had some nuts they would bring the new law to the courts
I am positive it would be declared un constitutional ..As a former NYker all I can say
is I am happy I moved...

I buddy of mine went to the gun shop to pick up his new G19 he ordered and guess what they tried to hand him
a G19 with NO MAGS.........
 
#84 ·
For the same reason they speed past you on the highway only to get in the best hide to operate their radar.
 
#86 ·
OK si I actually read the entire thread...

First off NY Police Officers as defined in the CPLR artical 1.20, and NY Peace Officers as defined in artical 2.10 of the CPLR are exempt under Penal Law 265.20 sub.1 ... So the entire argument that the police cant have more than seven rounds in their magazine is moot.

A second point is... NY Police Officers are responsible to their oath of office 24 hrs a day, and 7 days a week. In sum and substance they are never off duty.

The term "Arms Race" is a poor way of putting it. There is no arms race between the police and the criminal element. In some situations the police are out-gunned, and in most situation the criminal is out-gunned. Such is life on the streets.

While I dont believe the non-sworn citizenry should be limited by magazine capacity, or even the kind of firearm they may choose from. To compare the average armed citizen with even the laziest, most do nothing, house mouse cop is foolishness. While citizens are sometimes confronted with an armed criminal... The police do it for a living... even those municipal patrol cops,and those traffic cops.... even those indoors cops. Armed citizens dont have the resources of the police. Armed citizens dont have the training of the police, Armed citizens dont have the experience of the police. Getting through an armed confrontation takes more than a high cap magazine. I'm not saying that an armed citizen is'nt capable of defending themself... I am saying that they are not the police.
 
#92 ·
OK si I actually read the entire thread...

First off NY Police Officers as defined in the CPLR artical 1.20, and NY Peace Officers as defined in artical 2.10 of the CPLR are exempt under Penal Law 265.20 sub.1 ... So the entire argument that the police cant have more than seven rounds in their magazine is moot.

.
And if true, makes the entire thread rather ridiculous.

And, to help my Bronx buddy Secret out,
here's the text: He is right.

a. Sections 265.01, 265.02, 265.03, 265.04, 265.05, 265.10, 265.11,
265.12, 265.13, 265.15 and 270.05 shall not apply to:
1. Possession of any of the weapons, instruments, appliances or
substances specified in sections 265.01, 265.02, 265.03, 265.04, 265.05
and 270.05 by the following:
(a) Persons in the military service of the state of New York when duly
authorized by regulations issued by the adjutant general to possess the
same.
(b) Police officers as defined in subdivision thirty-four of section
1.20 of the criminal procedure law.
(c) Peace officers as defined by section 2.10 of the criminal
procedure law.



Don't let the facts get in the way of a hot thread--- carry on.
 
#88 ·
I admit I have not read every post in the thread but I am just throwing opinion out there.

The police should not be exempt. Plenty of cops in my area are walking around with 1911's in .40 or .45acp and I don't hear them whining about being under gunned. For most of the last century most cops were carrying .38 special revolvers. There are plenty of weapons available to law enforcement agencies that are perfectly adequate and conform with the new laws.

As far as the people the police deal with, lets also not forget the circumstances they deal with them under. Yes, it is their job to go out and hunt the bad guys down. Dangerous work, no doubt about it. But the people they are hunting are being hunted frequently because they have been hunting the general public who are subject to these laws. In general the officers doing the hunting are the ones to determine how the contact is initiated. Not so John Q Public. Officers are generally in an area they know and their back up knows where they are (if they are doing their job properly). Again, not so for John Q. Public. Officers frequently are issued body armor and alternative weapons to their hand gun. Not so for John Q. Public. If an officer's cruiser breaks down at 0300hrs they can usually expect someone on their shift to either pick them up or hang out with them until the tow truck comes. In a lot of places for a police tow the truck has to be there in a certain amount of time (30 minutes in my old county). Not so for John Q. Public.

Lacking all of the tactical advantages the police have over the general public I think it can be argued that the public needs higher capacity weapons than the police.
 
#94 ·
So, you knowingly violated Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and your sworn oath to uphold the law:

"No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

"Some folks deserve all the breaks they can get" can be used by almost anyone, to justify almost any violation. Who, outside the Legislature or the Courts, is going to choose just which folks "deserve all the breaks they can get?" In the Obamanation, I think you'll find it'll be illegal aliens, atheists, welfare recipients, and any other special-interest group that will provide votes and/or campaign contributions.

NO slam against LEO's here - just sayin'. I don't want any compromises on the 2nd Amendment, or any of the others, either.
 
#95 ·
While I do not believe any law biding citizen should have their mag capacity limited, the question was why should police officers be exempt.

First most officers by law are NEVER OFF DUTY.

Second, how many of you will run towards gunfire when none of your family or friends are in danger? That is part of the job.

Before Columbine, it was acceptable police practice to wait for SWAT before entering a live fire situation. Now "Active Shooter" situations require immediate action upon the first officer's arrival. Would you expect that officer to go in with his NY legal 7 round magazine?

If so, ....


Lets Be Careful Out There!
Ron
 
#98 ·
While I do not believe any law biding citizen should have their mag capacity limited, the question was why should police officers be exempt.

First most officers by law are NEVER OFF DUTY.
So were the victims in the theater in Aurora on duty or off duty?
Second, how many of you will run towards gunfire when none of your family or friends are in danger? That is part of the job.
Yup and that is a risk they assume when they apply for the job. If they don't like it they should seek other employment. And running toward the gunfire is irrelevant. If you are sitting in the food court or the theater or where ever when the shooting starts you don't get to run toward it, you are in it. You don't have the luxury of time to come up with your tactical plan. The police are not really the "first responders". The people that are at the scene when the incident goes down are the true first responders. Their response will have a much larger impact on if they live or die than that of the officers that show up a few minutes after the shooting starts.
Before Columbine, it was acceptable police practice to wait for SWAT before entering a live fire situation. Now "Active Shooter" situations require immediate action upon the first officer's arrival. Would you expect that officer to go in with his NY legal 7 round magazine?

If so, ....


Lets Be Careful Out There!
Ron
And officers responding to an active shooter have back up on the way, should in their "active shooter bag" have armor, medical kit and spare magazines for both sidearm and long arms. The general population going to movies (other than Gecko45) don't have that. Officers responding to an active shooter are by definition getting involved after bullets have started flying. With the luxuries of time, training and equipment on their side why do they need more firepower than Joe Citizen who only went there with the intent of watching a movie?

I find it amusing how many folks over the years have been whining about getting the military to drop the double stack 9mm pistol and go back to the 1911 but now people are saying that the 1911 isn't enough gun. If a single stack .45 isn't enough gun for cops why would it be enough for our war fighters?
 
#96 ·
It's my opinion that First responders should have the necessary tools to defend themselves and carry out their duties. I also believe that every-day citizens should also have the same tools necessary to defend themselves, especially since they are the ones the criminals prey on, and thus, are the first to need such protection. Also, we don't have the luxury of backup, so being prepared to defend ourselves against attackers is doubly important.

I would not limit law enforcement to reduce their effectiveness against threats. Instead, I would want civilians to be properly equipped to meet the same dangers.
 
#97 ·
They shouldn't. In fact there is no need for them to carry a gun in the first place. They don't in the UK and look how good it works there.
 
#100 ·
I don't think any of us should be limited but if you ask me, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. This is just another step to the liberals ultimate goal of the only people with guns being the military, police, and criminals. Today it's 7 round magazines, tomorrow after that doesn't work, it will be 0 rounds.
 
#101 ·
Most if not all states have laws giving officers places they can go the rest of us can't depending on circumstances, things they can do to perform their duty which the rest of can't, access to weapons and other instruments of force which the rest of us don't have.

THe exemptions or privileges accorded to our officers are necessary for our protection; you can't hold them to observance of a gun free zone for example if they are in hot pursuit or investigating an incident. We don't keep armed police from entering a school or a court or if needed, even an operating room.

State legislators throughout the country have given police powers and authority under statutes that go back decades in most instances, statutes which pre-date most of our lives, statutes and case law which go back to before we were the USA when they had night watchmen on the streets of Philadelphia (I would think).

I mention this because police authority isn't as stated in post 100 by KoolBreeze anything "liberal" or new or different.
Granting of authority to law enforcement is a long standing practice which is apolitical.

Few sane people want to tie the hands of the honest police officer and hamstring him in the ability to keep crime under control. To label a desire for law and order "liberal" is to twist the very meaning of the word as you can't have liberty in a world of chaos. Moreover, traditionally in our country the "law and order crowd" were labelled (insultingly) conservatives. Policing is neither liberal nor conservative, Dem or Repub., nor is it a political act or statement: It is even handed
(hopefully) fair application of the law as set forth by our legislators and interpreted by our courts.

We don't have, never have had, and never can have a "whats good for the goose is good for the gander" approach.
 
#102 ·
Simply put without an essay again. Nobody wants PD to be underarmed etc. We should be on parity with LE in relation to firepower however. The whole premise of at least my argument is that if and I repeat if Legislatures knew they were not going to be able to reduce firepower on civilians without also reducing it on LE then they would not and could not even propose such idiocy. To do so would gut their own LE agency to a point of being irrelevant which they would not consider or do.
It probably took five minutes to correct that little oversight if that in NY for PD. But they shouldnt have been able to correct it without dumping the whole legislation because it should be illegal for PD to better armed than citizens precisely in order to prevent such stupid legislation from being proposed in the first place.
 
#103 ·
Concern over an "arms race" between civilians and police has seriously got to be just about the most ridiculous, baseless, statist and illogical crap I've seen in a long time. The life of a cop is not worth any more or less than the life of a civilian, and complaining about something like that shows thinking contrary to that basic fact. It is insulting. And to insinuate that someone needs more than just a NICS check to be able to own an AR-15 because they might go shoot a cop is equally insulting. Your average .30-30 deer rifle from Wal-Mart will zip right through a cop's vest just as surely as anything an AR fires, so should we restrict them too? We have far more than enough gun laws on the books already, and the nonsense I see some advocating on here is reprehensible. Cops outgunned and stuck in the middle of an arms race. Give me a break. This represents shallow and frankly pathetic levels of "thinking" if I've ever seen it.
 
#107 ·
Well respectully from a ever increasing number of state officals and states thankfully FA may not be quite the force it thinks it is.
Its a simple as falling off a log. NO law or gun reg will stop or even slow down what a BG wants to amass as far a weaponry goes. Citizens being on par with police only helps to fight the threat when it rears its ugly head.
To believe gun laws and reg will somehow magically now stop BGs from getting what they want when they want it to do with what they want is simply fantasy. It makes some feel safer to think the FA acting as their nanny will be able to do squat other than weaken the rest of us, but facts proven over and over again for years plainly show otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snub44
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top